Short Note : 1. The prosecution evidence disclosed a case of sudden fight. There was no situation in which the appellants could claim the right of defence of person. The injuries on the person of the deceased indicated that he was subjected to a forceful Lathi attack on vital part like head. The damage of the head and the portion below it was serious which indicated that both the appellants must have the knowledge that by giving repeated blows on the vital part of the bead, the death of the victim was likely to occur. Both the appellants came together duly armed, opened simultaneous attack and then fled away together. All this indicated common intention of the two appellants. In the circumstances, the conviction under section 304, Part II read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code appears to be proper and calls for no interference.